The Civil Rights Vision–Is it Time for a New Paradigm?

From time to time (all too often in this writer’s opinion) the President makes a fatuous call for a national conversation on race. Everyone, most of all the President, knows that it’s fatuous because anyone who doesn’t accept the Civil Rights vision (which I will explain more fully below) would not dare utter a single career/life destroying word. I except myself from the foregoing as I am self-employed; i.e. my employer allows me great leeway in the opinions I express. Shout out: there’s no conversation when the accepted narrative is prescribed and those departing from it are subject to literal or metaphorical stoning.

Since the Civil Rights narrative has, in part only, led to the Trump fascist narrative, I think it’s a good time to look at it and say what it is. The Trump narrative is, I think, correctly characterized by Jeffrey Tucker as aggregation of resentment about race, class, sex, religion and the economy. Frankly, I think the Civil Rights vision is so ingrained in Americans today that people couldn’t even say what it is. They speak through the paradigm without knowing it is one. In short, they assume the Civil Rights vision is the way the world works.

So what is the Civil Rights vision? The term was coined by Thomas Sowell in his 1984 book, Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality?. I am going to encourage you to read this post at least a couple of times and to get his book and read it for yourself. I had to read Sowell’s book a couple of times myself before I grasped the ideas he was espousing. His ideas are never discussed today; i.e. they are so unfamiliar to our eyes and ears, the ideas are hard to grasp.

Sowell begins by noting that “the civil rights revolution began by emphasizing precisely what was unique about the history of black Americans — slavery, Jim Crow laws and some of the most virulent racism ever seen.” The Civil Rights laws were designed to address the specific historical experience of black Americans, but the specific principles created to address a specific situation for a unique people have been used to create general principles such that now some “70% of the population is entitled to preferential treatment under ‘affirmative action.'” (Page 8).

Sowell’s intention in his book was to ask (i) whether it is correct to use specific principles created to address the unique experiences of black Americans to address other concerns; and (ii) what are the risks to black Americans and to America as a whole of continuing to rely upon the Civil Rights narrative.

According to Sowell the central premises of the civil rights vision are:

“that political activity is the key to improving the lives of those…disadvantaged.”

I want to dwell on this vision as this is the central thesis that Sowell is tackling. “If the causes of intergroup differences can be dichotomized into discrimination and innate ability, then non-racists and non-sexists must expect equal results from non-discrimination. Conversely, the persistence of highly disparate results must indicate that discrimination continues to be pervasive….”

Sowell immediately challenges the proposition that different outcomes are caused by “society” (whatever that might be) by citing pronounced patterns within identifiable groups that are not caused by discrimination. By way of example, the choice of television programs watched, the age that people marry, or opinions expressed to poll takers show “pronounced patterns that differ from group to group–not a random distribution.”

Here are some important conclusions Sowell notes:

People in identifiable groups can share commonalities.

These commonalities among the group members are not caused by third parties.

By way of example, fully half of Mexican American wives were married in their teens while only 10 percent of Japanese American wives were married that young. (Page 10). Sowell follows this with a series of examples of peoples from various ethnic groups behaving similarly to others from the same group, but differently from others from different groups. “Statistical disparities extend into every aspect of human life. In major league baseball, for example, black players have hit home runs with significantly greater frequency than white players (in proportion to their respective times at bat) and with nearly twice the frequency of Latin players.”

Today commonplace statistical disparities are used as evidence of discrimination. Differences alone are evidence of discrimination. See, for example, the Target case settled with the EEOC for $2.8 million in which the EEOC reported “Target agreed to monitor the assessments it uses for exempt-level professional positions for adverse impact based upon race, ethnicity and gender.” In short, Target paid a financial penalty, not because it engaged in any intentionally discriminatory hiring practices, but because its practices could result in employment of persons in certain positions not in accordance with their numbers in the population. Sowell’s point is that statistical disparities between groups are to be expected; therefore, are not in and of themselves properly used as evidence of discrimination.

Sowell repudiates the idea that differences between groups are mere stereotypes that require changing the “public’s perceptions’ or raising the public’s ‘consciousness….[since] the reality of group patterns that transcend any given society cannot be denied.” Instead, “differences result from a wide range of demographic, historical, geographical, cultural and other factors at work.” (Page 92). As an aside, I will note that, according to Duarte, J.L., et al., social scientists since the 1930s decried the inaccuracy of social stereotypes, but when stereotypes were finally studied by social scientists, stereotypes were often found to be accurate. My point in making this aside is to show that Sowell’s use of group characteristics to account for group differences in outcome was not an acceptable means of conducting social science in the 1980s; i.e. in 1984 his ideas would have been seen, again according to Duarte, J.L. et al., as “nasty and inaccurate.”

Because the civil rights vision sees statistical disparities, not as a result of a myriad of differences, but as a result of the “bad” actions of social institutions, political activity has become crucial to achieving the end of equality. Sowell is wary about polarization along ethnic lines as a result of the “incessant reiteration of the themes of pervasive discrimination, hypocritical standards, and shadowy but malign enemies relentlessly opposing…progress.” (Page 86). He notes, it’s easy to polarize people and difficult to depolarize people. “Fomenting intergroup hostility has likewise raised many other obscure figures to power in many other countries, from ‘redneck’ politicians in the American South to Idi Amin in Uganda and-the classic example–Adolf Hitler.” (Page 23)

Sowell is quite conscious of the risk of schism in America along ethnic lines if the civil rights vision continues to be the only lens of viewing relations between disparate groups in America. “Risks must be taken for genuine civil rights. But the kinds of internal struggles that have torn other multi-ethnic societies apart must be for something more than the continuing viability of organizations or the continued employment of their lawyers. The dangers of the present course are both insidious and acute….The spread of hate organizations may be a symptom of much more unorganized resentment among people who are still not yet prepared to join fascistic or messianic movements. The dangers of continually adding to those resentments are all the greater the more heedlessly preferential doctrines are pushed in the courts, in federal bureaucracy and by activists.”

That’s where we are today. Racism is assumed to account for a myriad of differences in employment, health, living arrangements, etc. and white people are openly labeled racists in order to account for these differences. See, for example, White Men Must Be Stopped, The Scientific Way to Train White People Not to be Racist, Ten Ways White People are More Racist Than They Realize. I could go on, but I am sure you get the picture. A lot of Trump followers are sick and tired of the narrative that thoughts or beliefs that they either do not hold and/or have not expressed are responsible for the poor life conditions of numerous other people. They are glad to have a leader repudiate that narrative on their behalf. The leader that Sowell warned of in 1984 if the civil rights vision became the only allowable narrative has now emerged in Donald Trump.

Me? I think it’s time to re-read Thomas Sowell. He had some important things to tell us about people being different. We can acknowledge that black Americans were subjected to the unspeakable horror of slavery, that Jim Crow laws were wrong, that black Americans were denied the right to vote, and that racists still live and act today, all without accepting that the best vision or even a correct vision for our future is one of equality of outcome in all areas of life for all people — culture, food, education, income, job preference, family size, health, housing or any other indicator you care to mention.

As Sowell knew and Walter Williams reminds of in this article, we are quite different people for a myriad of reasons. Let’s acknowledge that. Let’s stop looking for “shadowy, malign enemies” to lay blame for all the ills that befall people. It’s time to rein in the self-created mandate of the EEOC that employers must employ all people in proportion to their numbers in the population. Let’s allow a broader narrative to emerge — a narrative that acknowledges racism may be present, but that other influences may be present as well. If we are ever going to have that national conversation, then the allowable opinions expressed must be more than those contained within the civil rights narrative.

I am a person embarking in a new direction after 30 years practicing commercial law. I am a late-comer to Libertarianism, but like most people, once my eyes were opened to the criminality of the state, I could not close them again. I would like to engage more women with Libertarian ideals, but most of my friends are progressives. Some are out and out Hillary supporters.

“we are quite different people for a myriad of reasons.”No we are not, Rose. You still have not thrown off your collectivist view of people, which is what all racism is.

Every individual human being is whatever they choose to be. One cannot choose their race, or sex, or hereditary characteristics, but what any individual is in terms of character and worth as an individual is chosen. Their hereditary background is totally irrelevant.

There is no fundamental difference in individual human beings. All external characteristics are superficial and only matter if individuals themselves make them matter, which many, unfortunately do.

Prejudice and discrimination will always exist so long as people believe, as you do, that people, “are quite different,” especially if they believe that non-existent difference is determined by whoever their ancestors were, or what their economic background is, or how they were treated by others.

Every day of my life I interact with individuals of every possible background (race, nationality, economic status, education, etc.) and have found that no matter what their background, most have made something of themselves that I both love and admire.

Eliminate the so-called “paradigms” that some supposed, “we,” is supposed to adopt and learn to identify every individual as an individual ignoring whatever superficial characteristics they may have. You may not eliminate discrimination, but at least you’ll rid it from your own life.

I thought I was saying that individuals are quite different people. Was it the use of the pronoun “we” that communicated something else? I do not see either Sowell or myself as taking a collectivist view of individuals. I agree that all people should be taken (or left) as the case may be based upon their own behavior, but that said, we can see that people sharing certain traits act similarly in some ways.

By way of example, I will refer to the studies of the wage differential between men and women, which when closely examined is shown to be the result of statistically significant differences in their work habits as a group. That “group characteristic” doesn’t at all mean that any individual women won’t excel in her field and rise to the top of her profession.

Let’s take an example that is wholly unloaded by any values and is used by Sowell. Sixty percent of Chinese immigrants to the US before WWI came from one of 98 districts in one province of Southern China. Or, 90% of Japanese immigrants to the US from Okinawa went to Hawaii, while those from Hiroshima went to the mainland. Knowing those statistics tells us nothing of the particular individual, but it does tell us something about how a group of people from one area of the world acted. I don’t see why that is particularly striking or even very controversial.

Its good that you can be insightful to the “commonality”- WHICH IS WHAT IS -that we all have as humans.
But, just because there is commonality, doesn’t mean that we are cut from the same cloth.

Why are you presuming this?
Anyways, you may not answer, or you will just give some round-about answer that doesn’t really answer the question. (Your choice)

You are the type that believes in social engineering. You feel that its necessary. Let me ask: To what extent will you enforce it? To what end? Ponder on this for a moment

Why can’t you just accept people for what they are? Why cant you just take the good with the bad?

Some people may not be convinced of what you are trying to advocate because its obtrusive, and biased. And thus, you have created enemies and a double standard. Especially once you institute it and put it into practice.

I really wish, that you ACCEPT that instincts are important. When you start cutting corners with this fact, like leftists or cultural communists, or nihilists do, it will lead to manipulation, suppression and tyranny. And you would have become what you have always hated.

A tyrant… of a cultural sort.

You make the mistake of thinking you can “mold” people. I’m sorry. All you can do is live by example.

Seeing people as individuals beyond their involuntary characteristics is the only way to counter any sort of collectivist thinking which leads to discrimination. That said, it’s a lot easier to judge the superficial aspects of a person and it’s fairly common procedure among people, but many are unaware of the ambiguity in classifying people by group-labels. I’ve written something about this issue —The Misuse of Social Terms

Interesting article, thank you for sharing it. I haven’t picked up the book you refer to by Sowell but I’m certainly interested in doing so now. I do believe that we cannot talk about race without also talking about culture, which you touched up in your article, and think this article is a step in the right direction.

Thanks, Michael. I appreciate your taking the time to read it and to respond. I am starting a series of podcasts with a young, black male friend, where I hope that we can talk about these matters, among others. I will let you know when it’s available.

Why do I think people are afraid to talk about cultural matters? Do you live in the USA? Are you not familiar with the tactics of the SJWs, how they lay siege to people and attempt to annihilate them? Did you not hear Loretta Lynch say that the Justice Department would prosecute “anti-Muslim speech?” Not that this has anything to do with Muslims, but it does have to do with discussing the mainstream narrative that the lives of black Americans are shaped by the racism of white Americans. That is a red hot topic.

Surely are some people out there willing to talk about these matters and are not SJWs. I’ve noticed that white people are typically the ones who shy away the most, probably because they will lose everything if they’re accused of racism. But I really do think there are people out there who want to talk about these cultural divides and what can be done (if anything can be) to help rectify them, and us being fearful of potential backlash shouldn’t stop us from having those discussions. Nothing gets better by making it taboo.

Since everyone thinks I am a racist, I think I should comment on this, so you know what a “racist” really thinks.

Race mixing is a psychological and “social agenda.”
It appears to happen in white countries, always pairing in advertising and media, white girls with black men…. and WHY IS THIS? Why is it being deliberately instituted and advertised and promoted? WHY? WHY? WHY?
…waiting….

I think I am fooling myself into thinking that people will be “honest” with me in telling me -“why.”
I know they wont tell me why. And I know WHY they wont tell me why.
Because they know, I have put them in a corner that they know they really cant get out of answering truthfully, so what do they do?
They become defensive. And they resort to lying as to why and for who’m and for what it is for.

The more people lie about stuff, the more angry and defensive people become.
Do people really think I am that stupid? I was not born yesterday.

You speak of “civil rights” from a political turmoil point of view, but it doesn’t change the fact that racial groups are fighting for control. Hence the Donald Trump movement.

In human nature:
No one should be forced or coerced into destroying their culture or their heritage and race, (hence race mixing agenda) for a “social constructs” like “equality and diversity.” That is a ploy. In other words its a sick twisted social experiment bent on manipulation and social engineering. One can say its a form of warfare. To do theses things is a declaration of war.

Don’t talk to me about morals and ethics, while there are people in this world who are doing this to other people.
You can not tell me, that I am a “racist” or a “hater” and then turn around and justify…. “diversity and equality” usually, BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY.

I guess its an attack on Europeans and what makes them… Europeans or white I guess.
But I’m just fooling myself into thinking anyone would tell me the truth, even though I have just told it.
Its very sad that people must lie to each other for a social agenda. If this is all that matters, then there is NO POINT in fighting for Liberty, Freedom, nor Happiness.

It just… there is no point. Its doesn’t mean anything anymore.
Liberty and Freedom doesn’t mean anything, when all that people care about is “social justice, equality, diversity and fairness.”

There is really no point to live in a world where people are constantly engaging in forms of racial sadistic oppresive warfare.
But… generally, if something doesn’t “feel right” to a person initially, then why is that people become easily enchanted with the alternative?

If people just followed their RIGHTFUL instincts, we would not be having these problems.

When people try to oppress or repress their instincts or feelings, that is the beginning of tyranny in ANY form. Whether if its racial, political, or social.

Freedom of Association must be re-instituted. Otherwise the governments going to dictate and control everything.

I have a question for you that I hope you can answer, since you’ve stated that you’re speaking the truth and are one to do so. You say that race mixing is a social agenda and that it is a weapon to destroy both race and culture. Is there not a case of individuals freely intermingling out of individual desire to do so, as opposed to part of an agenda?

I don’t think I used the phrase that “race mixing is a social agenda,” but taking that as the case, what I do think is that the State forces people to intermingle when they would not choose to do so. It does so when it buses children from one school to a more distant school. In Decatur (a small city outside of Atlanta) the school board created elementary schools holding only 2-3 years of classes so that students from distant neighborhoods would be in school together. It changed K-6 neighborhood schools into K-2 and 3-6 schools with children from several neighborhoods. It does so when the EEOC sues employers for not having employees in proportion to their numbers in society at large.

Of course, these laws are enforced in only one direction. When the white people became the “minority” in a local county, voluntary minority to majority school transfers immediately ceased. When a local barber shop cut Michael Phelps hair to great recent acclaim, no one raised an eyebrow, when the owner proudly announced that they were a “group of black barbers” who would cut anyone’s hair. Try substituting the phrase “group of white barbers” and watch what happens. Of course, I have no issue with the barbers associating in any manner they choose. I am only stating that sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander.

As far as what people freely do, that is completely their business. I have nothing to say on that topic other than, enjoy yourself.

“Since everyone thinks I am a racist, I think I should comment on this, so you know what a ‘racist’ really thinks.”

A racist doesn’t think, as your post has so clearly demonstrated.

“If people just followed their RIGHTFUL instincts.”

Human beings do not have instincts. What you think are instincts are only your irrational feelings and emotions, which as Ayn Rand (horrors a woman) said, “feelings are non-cognitive.” (It means feelings do not tell you what is true or not true, or what is right or wrong.) The word for depending on feelings rather than reason is “subjectivism.” It is the opposite of objectivism, which depends only on reason and objective knowledge.

A free society is impossible so long as it is dominated by the kind of people driven by mysoginist and racist feelings, sentiments, and emotions. Such people make a free society impossible, and will never be free themselves, because they are already enslaved by their irrational feelings.

Some of the most beautiful, gracious, and intelligent families I know are mixed-race, and there are no more beautiful children.

@sufi But you are missing the point as to WHY A PERSON would do it in first place.
Why would a person TODAY do it???

Its very ignorant for a person to be influenced by a social fad or what id advertised in mass media. Or what is ADVERTISED.

People may choose to do so, but I object to the sick social engineering which is involved. Which IS TARGETED and DELIBERATE. You can NOT deny that to me or anyone else.

That being said, the influences absent of any consideration to race mixing propaganda, for example BEFORE the 1920’s conservatively, the reasons would NOT have been out of racial turmoil, sympathy, or a social “fad.”

I don’t think you nor anyone else can deny this fact. And its very disingenuous of you to accuse me of a bad idea (essentially), when all I stated were facts.

In essence it is not a crime to be racially and culturally conscious, and to portray it as such, is a red-hearing of the highest sort.

@compassionislove11 So let me get this straight. I ask you a simple yes or no question, and you answer it by bringing up an entirely different point? Is it not irony that you address my question with a mention of a red-herring whilst also committing a red-herring yourself? I am more than willing to address the point you raise, but only after actually answering the question I put out to you.

@mainstreetlibertarian I see. However, People are playing “a game.” Its a sick twisted social or racial game in the eyes of certain groups.

There is race mixing propaganda out their that will make your head spin, and yet, no one condemns it.

It does not HAVE to be government or state-sponsored. The fact that it is perpetrated through cultural means, makes it “legal. ” And that is somehow called “Freedom.” I’m sorry but I don’t buy that at all. People use freedom as guise to do bad things to others, who don’t realize it. So excuse me if I seem “screaming or harping” at the top of my lungs about this issue.
People many people don’t know what is going on, that there IS an agenda.

I feel that white people especially college bound white kids are being bamboozled into the race mixing agenda (race is a social construct ect ect.) in deceitful ways. One method is “deconstruction.”

I just wish white people can retain their culture and racial characteristics. Many other groups do a much better job of it because they are more tribal in their mentality. They are more collectivist.

Race mixing propaganda is tribal in its intentions.
There are certain people who openly admit to targeting white people and white girls for it, and they are unashamed of it. I’m sorry but that’s a moral issue for me, and if it goes unchecked, there is a high possibility it could lead to something like a movement during WW2 with the Germans.

People Lie and manipulate others, and when their victims find out about it, they may not react very… peacefully.

I think people should take this into consideration in regards to the Trump movement. It could lead to fascism and even worse violence.

That is why people should try to be honest with each other ACROSS racial lines, instead of always trying to’ stick it’ to the other group in some way as form of vengeance or exploitation.

There IS an agenda going on. And the only answer is to allow discrimination, though freedom of association.
That is what retains diversity and culture in the first place.
Without it, there would be no culture and no racial differences, which is what certain people want. These types of people want a Utopia, and they are very fanatical in achieving it. They will resort to what ever unethical means in order to achieve it.

@saunders First: Get over yourself.
Secondly: Stop being a dishonest Freedom-loving person.

“Human Beings don’t have instincts”
That is a lie.
Human beings DO have instincts. We are animals, more specifically mammals. We have the most highly developed brain than any other species on this earth.

Plus, I think you are just deceiving or exploiting people to promote your own “racial agenda.” Or your own little “Utopia.” I’m sure you would like it if everyone was not diverse but mixed. What a pity.
And of course you would promote it, which is what you call “Freedom.”

I disagree to your concept of what constitutes “diversity.”
I also disagree as to the means in which you achieve it.
Bottom line:
It is not morally right, to convince white children that there is no such thing as white people. And to blame white people in order to feel sorry for others.
YOU KNOW that is a mind game.
There is nothing “good” about that action.

I think its bizarre that you would take pride and make no apologies in perpetuating it.
To me that IS racist.
It is racist, in its intent, and its racist in its motivations.

I’m not advocating hatred, racial manipulation, or deception between any race or group.

Or should I say, “Mr. compassion.” [I agree with Shaw, “compassion is the fellow feeling of the unsound.”] It is certainly not love.

Since you have Identified yourself as a subjectivist, mistaking your irrational feelings for what you call “instinct,” there is really no point in discussing any more with you. A reasonable discussion assumes reationality on both parts, feelings are not reason. There is no way to reason with someone’s else’s irrational feelings.

But I’ll give your this:

“It is not morally right, to convince white children that there is no such thing as white people. And to blame white people in order to feel sorry for others.”

I do not know a single individual who is doing that, but you are right it would be wrong to lie to a child, any child.

“I do not know a single individual who is doing that, but you are right it would be wrong to lie to a child, any child.”
The college academic system does this…..
Hello?
If you did see it happen, would you even condemn it subjectively for the sake of that WHITE person because it is affecting her/him-BECAUSE THEY ARE WHITE?-No. You will say something like, “..it would be wrong to lie to a child, any child.”

YOU CALLED ME A RACIST, and YOU are accusing ME of being “subjective” and “irrational?” Check yourself.
Hardy har har!

I’m not going to answer your question:
“How do you define race? In particular, the “white” race?”
Because its going to lead to you saying that “white people do not exist,” or ‘race doesn’t exist’ ect ect. -Basically on those lines.

Only when it comes to “white” people you find it necessary to say those things.

Which was the point I was trying to prove all along. : ) Its anti-white.
The fact that you asked the question of what is whiteness prooves the point.

Because I’m sure you would be silent if it was “Blackness,” or “Africaness.”
Or Hispanic or Latino.

Or being ethnically/racially European is a…. false concept.

You would allow it for any other racial or ethnic group, but when it comes to white Europeans, you deny it. I think that says it all right there,

@sufi Yes, that is whats been going on for the past, 66 years. But cultural institutions and there perceptions are being utilized and manipulated in order to make people “think” that its ok.

For example, what is happening in America or Europe is not happening in other regions of the world.

I can say its an “agenda,” because its done through culture.

One could say its a “fad” and anyone who is not part of that fad or ideology, is ostracized being called, “racist” or “supremacist.”

If the opposite were the case, lets say in Africa, and we or some collective group (in the sense of its motives and intentions AKA ideology) were promoting and advertising “interracial breeding” to Africans, it wouldn’t take very long for the African men, to realize what the whole “agenda” is.

If the tables were turned onto another region or country, lets say a non-white or non European dominated society. It would not be instituted nor tolerated as it is here in the developed world.

Here are some admissions from people:
They are all quotations.

“We’ll keep bashing the dead White males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as the White race is destroyed. Not deconstructed, but destroyed.”
“The goal of abolishing the White race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed White supremacists.”-Noel Ignatiev

“Mixed-race children have blurred America’s color line. They often interact with others on either side of the racial divide and frequently serve as brokers between friends and family members of different racial backgrounds, but America still has a long way to go.” -Daniel Lichter, Professor at Cornell University

The goal is to meet the challenge of racial interbreeding. The challenge of racial interbreeding that faces us in the 21st Century.

It’s not a choice, it’s an obligation. It’s imperative. We cannot do otherwise. We risk finding ourselves confronted with major problems.

We MUST change; therefore we WILL change. We are going to change ALL at the same time. In business, in administration, in education, in the political parties. And we will obligate ourselves as to results.

If this volunteerism does not work for the Republic, then the State will move to still more coercive measures.

The challenge of racial interbreeding that France has always known. And in meeting the challenge of racial interbreeding, France is faithful to its history.”-Nicholas Sarkozy

“The man of the future will be of mixed race [… it] will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals.”-Richard Nikolaus von Coudenhove-Kalergi

The White Majority is the Problem”

“Within the party we should not look at the flaws of so-called “foreign Swedes” as a problem. Instead it is we, the White majority, which is so numerous. We have to understand that we are the problem.”

“The Swedes must be integrated into the new Sweden , the old Sweden will not return.”-Mona Sahlin

Respectfully, I don’t you think you have any place to say that there is “no agenda.” Because the proof I have shown you CLEARLY shows otherwise.

“Mixed-race children have blurred America’s color line. They often interact with others on either side of the racial divide and frequently serve as brokers between friends and family members of different racial backgrounds, but America still has a long way to go.” -Daniel Lichter, Professor at Cornell University

What do you think he means by, “,,,America has a long way to go?”
I’m sorry but that seems very deceitful and conniving to me. Its racist against white Americans.

I only acknowledged it because you did so in a previous post. How do you acknowledge it?

A white person is a culturally relative concept, indeed a social construct. The differences change depending where you’re at. In Brazil “white person” means something different than in the states. Who and how determines this? Perhaps you haven’t traveled much so it’s understandable that you take this narrow view of individuals based on arbitrary and ambiguous categories.

@compassionislove11 So by your admission, there are some people who have their own individual preferences regardless of an agenda or anything of that sort. Is that correct? And if so, why is it not okay in your opinion?

@compassionislove11 Well I ask because I’m just trying to understand it from your perspective. I have no problem with free association in any context. If certain people don’t want to associate with certain other people, that is none of my business. Liberty allows for that. But liberty also allows for the opposite scenario too, where people freely intermingle to their hearts’ content. So if we truly do support free association, it has to go both ways: the freedom to exclude and the freedom to include.

@compassionislove11
You(nobody actually) can give an objective definition of what *is* a white, black, purple,yellow person, etc. I am not denying there are differences between people, but these labels are ultimately arbitrary and should be reserved for aesthetic purposes.

It’s right out of the statist, collectivist playbook to identify individuals as these labels when there are many more important character differences between what you perceive as two black or white people than any apparent racial characteristics they may share.

It is only your opinion that they are “arbitrary” and it should not develop further than that. I think you are viewing this in the wrong context.

But I will say that character is VERY important. EVERYTHING is judge and analyzed.
You are making the mistake in a false misconception that its only in terms of color and or race. Its not. Its much more than that. Its culture, religion, family upbringing, social values. EVEN PERSONALITY TYPE.

But when I hear a professor say something like this:
“We’ll keep bashing the dead White males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as the White race is destroyed. Not deconstructed, but destroyed.”
“The goal of abolishing the White race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed White supremacists.”-
Noel Ignatiev

That makes me think AS A WHITE PERSON that I am being targeted. And ALL white people are being targeted. So, how do you draw the line from that anti-white quote?

I think you are viewing this, as if I am only judging it in terms of one thing. “Whiteness.”
But everyone attacks anything that is attached to whiteness. Leftists are guilty of this too.

However, I’m not going to retract what I said, in that there is an anti-white propaganda drive against white people. There is an agenda. So excuse me, if I turn to, defending who I am, and what I represent.

It is not a superficial thing in what I am discussing-a particular aspect of white people.
Considering that Europe is being invaded. Or that interracial relationships are bent on sympathy and guilt.

You cant condemn my defense against anti-white semantic, political, or cultural… warfare. Because, I know that white Americans are being exploited, and deconstruct, and turned into a minority, which will leave them at the “whim” of majority racial groups.

People are not going to stop “hating” on whitey. Even if its 500 years from know and they are the minority. They will still say the things today.
Unless there isa return to Freedom of association ie: To discriminate, or censorship of certain topics that bash white culture and whiteness or white people.

But I don’t think anyone is going to advocate for a Liberty principle of discrimination.
Since when was discrimination bad? Only recently has it been considered “bad.”
And plus, Freedom speech can not be tampered with.

You are only saying that so that white people will be exploited genetically and mentally.
What is your intention in saying that?

“We’ll keep bashing the dead White males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as the White race is destroyed. Not deconstructed, but destroyed.”
“The goal of abolishing the White race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed White supremacists.”-
Noel Ignatiev